Sprint to offer Samsung Galaxy Tab Nov 14 for $399 with contract

Sprint customers will be able to pick up a Galaxy Tab just three days after it …

Though Verizon will be the first carrier to offer Samsung's new Android-powered Galaxy Tab on November 11, consumers will be able to pick one up with 3G data service from Sprint just three days later. Unlike Verizon, which is offering the device contract-free with pay-as-you-go data rates, Sprint will sell the device with a $200 subsidy in exchange for a two-year contract.

The Sprint version is identical hardware-wise to the Verizon version, and will come with some Sprint-branded apps. Pricing is much different from what Verizon is offering, however. The Tab will cost $399.99 with a new two-year contract (Sprint has not announced contract-free pricing). Whereas Verizon is offering plans that "start" at $20 per month for 1GB of data, Sprint is announcing two data plan options. Users will be able to choose between $29.99 per month for 2GB of data and unlimited messaging or $59.99 for 5GB of data with unlimited messaging.

Sprint will also tack on additional fees for two other services. Users can pay an additional $29.99 per month to use the device as a mobile hotspot (though there's no mention of additional data allowance). If you prefer Sprint's GPS navigation app over the free Google Navigation, that will cost you $2.99 per day or $9.99 per month.

Customers can reserve a Galaxy Tab starting today by purchasing a $50 Sprint gift card, which can be used for any Sprint products or services (including paying part of the Tab purchase price). Sprint will contact customers closer to the November 14 launch date to make appointments to finalize the transaction and pick up the device.

$1440 for a tablet when you factor in the cost to have (near) unlimited data.

(i seem to remember the apoplectic rants and screams of folks when Apple and AT&T proposed such "evil" upon "suckers" who would be so dumb as to buy an iPhone. I'm just saying...)

If you ask me, the real problem across the board with all of this is that there is incredible disparity between prices of data plans simply by how that data is delivered to the customers.

Verizon gives you $20 a month for 2 gigs with no contract, but *only* if you buy a MiFi with an iPad? Otherwise, its just outright rape to get a MiFi for $60 for 5 gigs and you're stuck at forking that $60 for two years?

Sprint gives you $30 a month for this tablet for only 2 gigs per month, but Virgin Mobile, using Sprint's network, hooks you up with *unlimited* data for $40?

There is no sanity with any of these data plans, and its the reason i've completely balked. I was hot on the $20/2 gigs/no contract, but when it required me to buy an iPad (which i already have), i decided to just keep charging my work for $12/night shitty internet access at hotels.

So, will we see analysis of this talking about how $399 isn't the TRUE cost, and we should include the total cost of the contract (an extra $720) before comparing it to the iPad? Or do writers and analysts only pull stunts like that when it's against Apple?

29.99$ to use your tab/phone as a mobile hotspot? I'm paying for traffic (2 GB, 5GB), why should I then pay more when I'm using a different device? Data plans in the US are so overpriced.

I'm paying the equivalent of 29 $ here in Germany for 5 GB of data - wifi hotspot, VoIP,... allowed. They even sent me an extra SIM card for my laptop for free. 3 month plan - so not really a long commitment either (no phone subsidy, though). Of course, short contracts and unlocked phones that work with all carriers increase competition. Who wants that?

costs more for data then iPad (iPad is $25 for 2gb or $55 for 2gb of data + 3gb of overages)

and

requires a 24 month contract

Sounds like a winner!

I had a chance to use a Galaxy Tab for a few minutes a couple days ago. It felt fat and plastic-y and didnt really feel like it could do anything my Nexus One couldnt. The software is obviously a rush job, at 7" it felt low resolution and cheap. Like iPhone apps running in doubled mode on an iPad, all the time.

How long will mobile carriers persist on insulting our intelligence with this BS "...of data with unlimited messaging."? Does anybody still actually believe that "messaging" is a worthy enough feature to actually pay for separately? Seriously, it's freaking DATA, and a minuscule amount of it to boot! This has been a giant rip off from the beginning since it costs the carriers nothing and I'd love to know what kind of margins they make on it (98%?)!

I'm pretty surprised no one seems to be able to match Apple's price. Yes, this tab is technically cheaper, but with a two year contract and a smaller screen (which probably is not IPS either), is it really a bargain?

I'm pretty surprised no one seems to be able to match Apple's price. Yes, this tab is technically cheaper, but with a two year contract and a smaller screen (which probably is not IPS either), is it really a bargain?

There are claims that Apple is further subsidizing the price of the iPad to an unnatural level so they can take the early market advantage. Considering the number of parts that are the same as other systems of theirs and the quantity they are ordering screens in, this may just be economy of scale and the other manufacturers haven't gone as high on their production numbers as Apple. I don't know. It could be true or just another Apple hate-based fairy tale.

I'm pretty surprised no one seems to be able to match Apple's price. Yes, this tab is technically cheaper, but with a two year contract and a smaller screen (which probably is not IPS either), is it really a bargain?

Very true. I'd love to see an apples to Apples comparison...ie: a tablet with similar specs *and* plans. I go with Sprint for my phones and almost always choose anything over Apple as long as it is similarly capable but there is no way I will buy this tablet or notebook with a contract attached. The only reason I do contracts with my phone is that there is no financial benefit to not taking the contract--I don't save the $300-400 subsidy cost on my bill over two years if I bring my own smart phone. I would much rather buy a basic wifi-only iPad for $525 than spend $420 (after tax) on a Galaxy Tab that comes with its very own $30-60 monthly bill.

I am as much a sucker for cool gadgets as anyone but I'm still holding off for a tablet that can do a decent job of replacing my notebook and which I can pay for right out. This thing (like the iPad) is essentially a larger version of my phone which costs a lot more (both up front and per month). I can't replace my phone with a tablet because they are too big. I can't replace my laptop with one of these new slate-only tablets because they can't run a lot of the software I need to run.

I can't wait until these things get more powerful and/or cheaper so I can either afford one as a "supplemental" (read: cool but unnecessary) device or replace my notebook for more portability.

That this is the only decent Android tablet on the market right now, and Samsung makes most of the components, shows you how difficult it is to build a decent tablet that can compete with the iPad. The fact that with a 7" screen, and most other components being identical to the Galaxy S could only beat the iPad by $30 (iPad+3G is the real competition) really tells you how much trouble the competition is in. $400 without contract is really the fair price for this type of tablet. I really have to see what happens to the market when Apple releases an 8-9" tablet (which is really more appropriate for someone wanting a smaller tablet, as 7" is too small to be beneficial over a Galaxy S/EVO/Droid X, and is still too big for your pocket), which will probably be under $400.

I'm pretty surprised no one seems to be able to match Apple's price. Yes, this tab is technically cheaper, but with a two year contract and a smaller screen (which probably is not IPS either), is it really a bargain?

There are claims that Apple is further subsidizing the price of the iPad to an unnatural level so they can take the early market advantage. Considering the number of parts that are the same as other systems of theirs and the quantity they are ordering screens in, this may just be economy of scale and the other manufacturers haven't gone as high on their production numbers as Apple. I don't know. It could be true or just another Apple hate-based fairy tale.

These contracts will kill Android based tablets. How is it that I can have an Evo through Sprint with true unlimited data / texting and tethering (not the hotspot) for only $20 more a month? Oh yea, you can talk with it too.

Samsung probably should have spent more time in development. Smaller, crappier, more expensive package vs Apple. Not a recipe for success.

A few things1) Pricing a tablet at $250 to $300 off contract doesn't seem to be all that viable for most manufacturers (especially if you package in a no contract 3G radio) given smartphones cost $500 to $600 off contract. I understand that some parts of a larger device may cost less than some parts of a smaller device, but $250 tablets simply will make no profit margin regardless

2) The issue is that tablets are seen as an accessory to a lot of people, but the cost to make them are pretty real. Unless you can convince customers of a need (like Apple can), you may as well not even try

3) The whole issue of contracts and carriers is misguided. Tablets should largely be standalone devices using wifi with occasional 3G access. Like Jobs said, almost all tablet buyers will also be smartphone buyers, already locked into carriers and contracts. Tablets need to be sold essentially free of carrier tie in - it needs to be an option if you want it (sort of like how it works with the iPad)

It may take a while (component prices declining, enough apps to make tablets functional enough, etc) for these competitors to figure this out. Blackberry seems to be the closest at this point.

I'm pretty surprised no one seems to be able to match Apple's price. Yes, this tab is technically cheaper, but with a two year contract and a smaller screen (which probably is not IPS either), is it really a bargain?

There are claims that Apple is further subsidizing the price of the iPad to an unnatural level so they can take the early market advantage. Considering the number of parts that are the same as other systems of theirs and the quantity they are ordering screens in, this may just be economy of scale and the other manufacturers haven't gone as high on their production numbers as Apple. I don't know. It could be true or just another Apple hate-based fairy tale.

Considering the iPhone, Touch, iPad and AppleTV share many of the same components, no one will match Apple's economy of scale in the next 5 years. Plus Apple has the massive cash buying power to secure the components they need with the confidence in knowing they are going to sell in volume.

Too small to motivate an additional purchase for those who have a smartphone. Too large to be a pocketable device. Too small to steal thunder from netbooks & laptops. Too big to avoid iPad comparison, too small to compete effectively with it.

And at $400 plus a 2-year contract, just plain too expensive all around.

I'm pretty surprised no one seems to be able to match Apple's price. Yes, this tab is technically cheaper, but with a two year contract and a smaller screen (which probably is not IPS either), is it really a bargain?

What makes you think Samsung cant match apple's price? Samsung actually manufactures most of the expensive components that goes into the tab. Apple doesnt manufacture squat, and there's no way apple can get stuff cheaper than what samsung can build it for. Oh and btw, the Tab does in fact have an IPS screen.

I guarantee you the Tab will fall in price very rapidly. The only reason its expensive now is because its new and there isnt any competition yet. The Tab is essentially a big Galaxy S smartphone, and you can get those now for $0 on contract.

1) Pricing a tablet at $250 to $300 off contract doesn't seem to be all that viable for most manufacturers (especially if you package in a no contract 3G radio) given smartphones cost $500 to $600 off contract. I understand that some parts of a larger device may cost less than some parts of a smaller device, but $250 tablets simply will make no profit margin regardless

What makes you think Samsung cant match apple's price? Samsung actually manufactures most of the expensive components that goes into the tab. Apple doesnt manufacture squat, and there's no way apple can get stuff cheaper than what samsung can build it for. Oh and btw, the Tab does in fact have an IPS screen.

I guarantee you the Tab will fall in price very rapidly. The only reason its expensive now is because its new and there isnt any competition yet. The Tab is essentially a big Galaxy S smartphone, and you can get those now for $0 on contract.

What makes me think they won't is because they haven't. If you think the iPad is "no competition", then Apple obviously had even less than no competition when they brought out the iPad starting at $500. And you can't use "on contract" pricing to argue, that's the whole point, of course you can sell something for cheaper or even "free" with a $2,000+ contract, but that's all hidden cost. If you actually want to buy another two year contract, this product might work out for you, I just don't think most people are going to want that chain around their leg, especially since they are all already paying for a phone contract.

But you're right, the Tab does appear to have an IPS screen, that's good.

Is it IPS? It has been described as a Super TFT (new LCD variant), which is certainly on par quality wise with IPS, but I was under the impression it was different than IPS.

Quote:

I guarantee you the Tab will fall in price very rapidly. The only reason its expensive now is because its new and there isnt any competition yet. The Tab is essentially a big Galaxy S smartphone, and you can get those now for $0 on contract.

But there is competition. And they have not priced or positioned it (contract wise) it to beat that competition.

I don't understand people's logic. They keep talking about the "hidden" cost of the Tab, but that doesn't make sense. If you're comparing this tab to the equivalent iPad then you have to include the price for 3g on that as well. Which is $25 a month for 2GB of data from ATT IIRC. No reason to buy the 3g version and not use the 3g. Obviously if you don't need 3g then the iPad is a better choice since you can buy it without 3g.

I don't understand people's logic. They keep talking about the "hidden" cost of the Tab, but that doesn't make sense. If you're comparing this tab to the equivalent iPad then you have to include the price for 3g on that as well. Which is $25 a month for 2GB of data from ATT IIRC. No reason to buy the 3g version and not use the 3g. Obviously if you don't need 3g then the iPad is a better choice since you can buy it without 3g.

What is so hard to understand? The 3G iPad comes without a contract. You only buy data when you need it, potentially saving you money. This is different from a contract where you have to pay every month whether you need the data or not (for instance, if you're in range of wifi for a whole month). Remember, this isn't a phone, so usage patterns would be very different, and in this case the 3G iPad is considerably more flexible.

I don't understand people's logic. They keep talking about the "hidden" cost of the Tab, but that doesn't make sense. If you're comparing this tab to the equivalent iPad then you have to include the price for 3g on that as well. Which is $25 a month for 2GB of data from ATT IIRC. No reason to buy the 3g version and not use the 3g. Obviously if you don't need 3g then the iPad is a better choice since you can buy it without 3g.

The 3G radio is basically a security blanket. The iPad is sized to the extent it will largely be used at home, at a coffee shop, meetings, airports, trains, etc. A lot of these environments will have wifi. If not, you simply may not need an internet connection to do what you need to do on the device (watch a movie, take notes, read your books or pdf documents, etc). For most users, the iPad really isn't an always connected device, especially since they likely already have one in their pocket. I have the iPad 3G, tested out the $15 3G plan, and I don't plan on renewing it unless I am on the road and need it

The hilarious irony is that android users have wifi tethering so mandatory 3g = fail, rather spend less on wifi only ipad and tether via my nexus one. The contract free pricing in oz is a joke and this thing has no chance as a result

AT&T 3g has absolutely smoked Sprint 3g in every speed comparison done in the last 2 years.

Well, since the Tab on Sprint is $400 that's $229 cheaper than the equivalent iPad, sans screen size obviously. Even over 2 years with a $5 difference that's only an extra $120 for the Tab. In the end that's still $109 cheaper. As I said though, if you don't need 3g then the iPad is probably a better deal. However, if you plan on tethering then the Verizon Tab ends up bring the best if you have Android, assuming you don't exceed the data plan. Actual price is going to vary person to person with each tablet being cheaper for a different section of the market.

If you think the iPad is "no competition", then Apple obviously had even less than no competition when they brought out the iPad starting at $500. And you can't use "on contract" pricing to argue, that's the whole point, of course you can sell something for cheaper or even "free" with a $2,000+ contract, but that's all hidden cost. If you actually want to buy another two year contract, this product might work out for you, I just don't think most people are going to want that chain around their leg, especially since they are all already paying for a phone contract.

So? Even if there is a contract attached, the price of the hardware goes down, which is the point I'm trying to make.

It will bomb. Terrible price point, and who wants a contract on one of these things anyway? If I had one, I'd use it as a device for internet surfing in bed, on airplanes/long car rides, maybe at work on lunch break once in a while. But that's exactly what I do with my smartphone right now; a bigger screen might help in some cases, but a bigger downside is that it can't fit in my pocket!

And on contracts for tablets: For the one or two times a month I'd need 3g, it's definitely not worth paying the monthly fee (especially since I'm already paying it for my smartphone!) The first carrier to allow you to use the same 3g plan on multiple wireless devices will be a winner. But the cartel of Verizon/AT&T/Sprint (and T-Mobile to some extent) would never allow that, sadly.

They see that Apple is making buckets of cash on the iPad and they are saying "we can do that!", but what they fail to understand is that the iPad is piggybacking on the success and huge number of iPhone/iPad/Touch compatible apps in the app store and the familiarity and trust that they have built up. To bring out this standalone device without the market preparation that Apple has done and expect to be able to charge a premium for it is either naive or arrogant. Also, no matter what your attitude about Apple, you have to grant them that they are marketing geniuses, and are giants in the consumer electronics world with a very identifiable style and brand. I can't think of a single product that Samsung has made that has earned any recognition comparable to even a minor Apple product like Apple TV.

When people are buying a vision and a style and not just buying stuff you can charge for that cachet, otherwise you have to compete on price. Hopefully Samsung will figure this out and price it accordingly, as it seems like a nice piece of hardware.